W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:16:36 -0800
Message-ID: <20110309071636.63602psn0vdjgces@kcoyle.net>
To: Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>
Cc: public-lld@w3.org
Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:

> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> Quoting Ross Singer <ross.singer@talis.com>:
>>
>>> The LC FRBR Display Tool (
>>> http://www.loc.gov/marc/marc-functional-analysis/tool.html#table) only
>>> mentions record type and publication language, but surely this isn't
>>> enough,
>>> right?  This: http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328 isn't describing the same
>>> expression as this: http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632, correct?
>>
>>
>> That's where my bugaboo about the dependency shows up. You can't ever JUST
>> look at the Expression, you always have to take into account the
>> Expression+Work combination. Otherwise, we'd have half the library universe
>> connected to a single expression for an English-language text. Expressions
>> on their own are not meaningful. (And Manifestations on their own are only
>> minimally meaningful.)
>>
> In this example, though, wouldn't the Work be the same?  The both have
> the same Uniform Title:
>
> "Im Westen nichts Neues. English"
>
> One is a translation, one is "abridged and adapted", but this only
> seems to be defined in the statement of responsibility.
>
> I guess what I'm asking is, given these two MARC records
> http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328/marcxml and
> http://lccn.loc.gov/97813632/marcxml is there a way, other than
> performing heuristics on the 245$c (which I'm not counting out, I'm
> just trying to work with some real-life, chosen completely at random,
> data and see where we stand), to extract an accurate Expression?

OK, Now I think I get it.

Basically, I'm not sure you can extract an accurate Expression from  
most MARC records, especially since they themselves may be inaccurate.  
This one is especially interesting for transformations (and I'm not  
exactly sure what the cataloging rules would say). In most cases, the  
100 field has the Work creator. In this case, the 100 field seems to  
have the creator of the adaptation, which MIGHT be considered an  
Expression, with this person as the author of the expression. How you  
would get that, accurately, out of the MARC data is beyond me.

There is a uniform title which should connect to the Work title, but  
the authors would be different. It's quite possible that this MARC  
record is WRONG in how it has represented the Work. It's also possible  
that it's right, and all bets are off.

This is an example of where MARC doesn't allow catalogers to say what  
RDA and FRBR want: there isn't a way to create a relationship between  
the M E & W. It may be inherent in the record (if you know how to read  
it) but it isn't there as data.

kc

>
> -Ross.
>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 15:17:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 March 2011 15:17:11 GMT